v. UNITE:Q; ElTATES. ,j:, (Circuit Ccmf.t;S.D.New 20,1894.)
Tfswe. paper having' certain coldrs,;in'stJ'lpes and plaids,. pnnted or st8:JupOO:,thereon, and"'nbt; 'of one uniform color, held to be dutiable at 8 centlsP6lU pound and 15i per 'Cent. ad. valQre'm, under p&rag'rapj:l 419 of the act' of Octyber I, 1890, paper, white or colored,".\lnd not at 2& pel' ad valorem, paragraEll1..423, as "printel! matter, not specialI,' ' , "', ly pro"Vided for.'"
Decision of Board of United States affil'llle'd.
The importations consisted:of'white tlssuepaper, printed on one side with colored. strip,eli lU;1d plfllds. .'tb.e collector assessed duty thereon under paragraph 41l:),otthea,Ctof pctOQef',l, 1890. ,'.' The importers duly protested, claimmatter/'under paragraph,4,23 of said act. ing same to'be dutiable The board of United States general appraisers sustained the collector's classification. The co'ntentioll' ofthei'mporters was that "colored" tissue papers confined to ,$ose dyed ina. vat, and that the articles in were suit were not ·known in ·. and commerce. as "colored;" bllt as "printed tissues," tissues," and were "printed matter."
Stephen Greeley 'HenrYG; Platt, U.
fQr the JJnited States.
Pis.trJc,t. (oraJlY)., ',rhis appeal from the the boatik..qf generalappraisers class:q:ying certain paper as "tissue paper" under the provisions of Schedule M, par. 419, of thetaiiff act of and pa,ttierns.have been printed or, stamped on in The'lihp'orter claims that it should be classified as "prjp,tedmatter," under paragraph said act. ,The of the poard of appraisers is affil'llled, because the method by which the paper was color.eff does not affect its character, as "colored tissue paper," and, furtHermore, because thea,rticle does not fal11Vlthin tl;teclass of "books/etchings, maps, .cJJ,arts, and all printed matter," embraced within the provisions of paragraph 423. .....
PARK .et 1Il.v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 3, 1894.)
(lUSTOr.tS DUTIES-ACT OF OCTOl3ER 1, 1890-'l'RUFFJ,ES.
"'!'ruffles held to be dutiable at 45 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph . 287· of the tariff act of OCtober 1, 1890, within the clause, "Vegetables of all kinds, prepared or presel:'1Ved, includiJ;lg pickles and.sauces o-f all kinds, not, specially provided. M," and not at 40 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 271, as asshitHllting to "mlishrooms, prepared or preserved In .' . tins, jars, bottles or
Aippeal from Decision.·of,Board of United States General Apprais' ers. Board. Park & Tilford, in imported truffles in bottles.. Duty was assessed thereon by the cQl1ector of cUst'Qms at New York at 45 per cent. ad valorem, under 281'·of the act of October 1, 1890.
Importers protested, claiming· duty at 40 per cent.' ad valorem, under paragraph 271, and that truffies are a species of fungi and assimilate to mushrooms. The board of United States general appraisers sustained the importers' protest, and reversed the decision of the collector. The collector appealed from the decision of the board to the United. States circuit court. Edward Hartley, for importers. Henry C. Platt, U. S. Atty. ' WHEELER, District Judge. These truffles are not mushrooms, in similitude to which it is claimed they should be assessed, but are found to fall, commonly and commercially, within "vegetables of all kinds prepared or preserved, including pickles and sauces of all kinds not specially provided for." They, in some way, vegetate, and are a kind of vegetable. Judgment of the board of appraisers reversed
SMITH, surveyor of Customs, v. MIHALOVITCH et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 3, 1894.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-GLASS BOTTLES.
Flint-glass bottles, molded, and holding more than one pint, are dutiable at one cent per pound, under paragraph 103 of Act Oct. 1, 1890, and not at 60 per cent" under paragraph 105,
2. ApPEAL-MATTER NOT ApPARliJNT ON RECORD.
plied on appeal where the record does not show that the duty imposed is less than that rate.
ware llhall not pay a less duty than 40 per cent. ad valorem, cannot be ap-
'. The provision of paragraph 104 of Act Oct. 1, 1890, that certain glass-
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio. In June, 1891, the defendants in error, Mihalovitch, Fletcher.& Co., imported from Germany, through the port of New York, certain flint glassware, claimed by them to be bottle glassware. The merchandise was forwarded in bond to the custom house in Cincinnati, where the acting surveyor of customs assessed it for duty at 60 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 105 of the act of October 1, 1890. To this action of the surveyor the importers duly protested, claiming said assessment to be illegal, and insisting that the duty should have been assessed under paragraph 103 of said act, and asking to have $108.75, so illegally assessed, refunded. The importers appealed from the action of the surveyor at Cincinnati to the board of general appraisers at New York, under the act of June 10,1890. In October, 1891, that board filed a decision sustaining the protest (If the importers, and found the articles imported to be flint-glass bottles, under paragraph 103 of the act above cited, and to be dutiahlp at one cent per pound. Under the provisions of section 15 of the